RE: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, and all:

I am really sorry to read this. First, what is worse: undoing 3
year work of Task Force (not Working Group, and we all know now
what is the difference in our PDP process, right?) or a quick
arrangement among a few over lunch?

Why is it that the weaker voice (by institutional design) is so
much difficult to be heard and acknowledged, even when its
proponents are numerous enough to make a majority, and even a
super-majority?

Why is it that always the same set of actors have to prevail,
and the same others have to shrink back?

What is this council all about? Is it a body that is serious
about helping ICANN to live up to its self-claimed bottom-up
processes whatever it takes, including the elementary fairness
and honesty of accepting the outcome of legitimate processes as
already established and agreed upon, or is the council a trade
union of the industry and business-IPR interests, exclusively
concerned with protecting such vested interests?

When you say:
I would oppose making it so
> restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might
> result in
> totally new approaches not yet considered.

Well, we've been doing creative thinking for years. Remember?
the definition of the Whois purpose had been rephrased until the
day of the vote: how more creative can one be? The last
occurrence of this was the "special circumstances" creation. Are
you really kin moving the process forward? Then it is time to
stop that kind of creative thinking that rather looks like
filibustering, respect once for all the outcome of the Whois TF
and the Council vote, and build upon these.

Sincerely, and honestly,

Mawaki Chango

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive
> work that
> was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion.  We spent
> the majority
> of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue
> and even
> worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break.  If we
> restart the
> process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we
> will
> again spend the majority of our meeting time trading
> amendments without
> moving the process forward.  I doubt very seriously that there
> is any
> possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly
> satisfies
> everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that
> constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion.  I agree
> that the SoW
> needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so
> restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might
> result in
> totally new approaches not yet considered.  It's not as if
> strong
> consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to
> be plenty
> of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to
> commit to it.
> 
> I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and
> considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached,
> fine; if not,
> then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in
> Lisbon and work
> on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the
> procedural
> guidelines, etc.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
>  
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin
> Gross
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM
> > To: Maria Farrell; 'Council GNSO'
> > Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working
> Group
> > 
> > NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of 
> > clarification that is necessary to keep this working group
> focused. 
> > 
> > The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded 
> > because it would allow for each and every recommendation of 
> > the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the 
> > issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of 
> > the task force and make recommendations concerning how those
> 
> > policies may be improved...).
> > 
> > This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three
> years 
> > of work on the whois task force.  Therefore it is important 
> > that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly
> 
> > stating the objective.
> > 
> > NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in 
> > CAPS] as follows:
> > 
> > "The objective of the working group is to examine the 
> > IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommendED OPOC
> PROPOSAL 
> > of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how 
> > THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS 
> > THOSE ISSUES."
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Robin
> > 
> > Robin Gross wrote:
> > 
> > > In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to
> amend it as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how third
> 
> > parties may 
> > > access registration data that is no longer available for 
> > unrestricted 
> > > public query-based access for legitimate activities."
> > > to...
> > > Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may
> access 
> > > registration data that is no longer available for 
> > unrestricted public 
> > > query-based access."
> > > Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy 
> > > principles...."
> > >
> > > Reason:
> > > The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party
> will 
> > be given 
> > > access to the data for any activity. But this begs the 
> > policy question 
> > > that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties 
> > (e.g., just law 
> > > enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT
> CONDITIONS.
> > >
> > > As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC 
> > members, the 
> > > objections of the EU to the language was resolved by 
> > stating that some 
> > > of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was
> legitimate, but 
> > > this did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE 
> > DATA was also 
> > > legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already 
> > determined that the 
> > > purpose of Whois does not include many of these
> activities, 
> > so there 
> > > is no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for 
> > those activities.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > > Ross Rader wrote:
> > >
> > >> Maria -
> > >>
> > >> Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft
> is 
> > >> generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section 
> > entitled "work 
> > >> plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of
> the 
> > >> language currently employed. In a couple of places, the
> work plan 
> > >> outlines a much greater scope of work than that 
> > contemplated by the 
> > >> resolutions, specifically;
> > >>
> > >> 4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of
> 
> > the roles 
> > >> to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to
> examine the 
> > >> definition of the operational point of contact.
> > >>
> > >> 4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third
> parties may 
> > >> access unpublished data for legitimate activities,
> whereas the 
> > >> resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate
> interests will 
> > >> access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but 
> > the proposed  
> > >> language requests the creation of a comprehensive
> proposal that  
> > >> describes an access mechanism for a long list of
> "legitimate 
> > >> activities" rather than a proposal that describes an 
> > access mechanism  
> > >> for use by legitimate interests.
> > >>
> > >> 4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine
> how the 
> > >> distinctions should be made whereas the Council
> resolution only 
> > >> sought to discover if the distinctions in question were 
> > possible to 
> > >> make.
> > >>
> > >> In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense
> 
> > to rely on 
> > >> the text of the original resolution as ratified by
> Council 
> > to ensure 
> > >> that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives.
> > >>
> > >> Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining 
> > agreement. When 
> > >> it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad
> agreement", will 
> > >> this be measured on the views shared by individuals or 
> > interest groups?
> > >>
> > >> Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from
> the same 
> > >> foundation, it might make sense to specifically include
> the policy 
> > >> recommendations of the task force in the document itself,
> 
> > either as a  
> > >> summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The
> policy 
> > >> recommendations that I am referring to are included in 
> > section 4 of 
> > >> the report, as per the clarifications I made during our
> discuss at 
> > >> the recent Council meeting.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again,
> > >>
> > >> -ross
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Dear Council members,
> > >>>
> > >>> Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the
> statement of work 
> > >>> and working methodologies of the Whois Working Group,
> created by 
> > >>> resolution of the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item
> for 
> > >>> discussion and adoption at the next Council meeting on
> 12 April.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the 
> > Working Group, 
> > >>> and feel free to to put any interested constituency
> members or 
> > >>> outside experts in touch with me for further
> information.
> > >>>
> > >>> All the best, Maria
> > >>> <Whois Working Group Charter2.doc>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ross Rader
> > >> Director, Retail Services
> > >> t. 416.538.5492
> > >> c. 416.828.8783
> > >> http://www.domaindirect.com
> > >>
> > >> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on
> tomorrow."
> > >> - Erik Nupponen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>